• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 프라그마틱 플레이 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 (portal.uaptc.edu) and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.